CVE-2025-47823VulnerabilityPublished 27 Jun 2025Updated 2 Sep 2025

CVE-2025-47823: Flock Safety License Plate Reader · Use of Hard-coded Password

Affects Flock Safety License Plate ReaderSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 2.2 Low.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 06:26 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

2.2Low

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 14% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:P/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:N

Attack Vector: Physical
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Changed
Confidentiality: Low
Integrity: None
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Physical: The attack requires the attacker to physically touch or manipulate the vulnerable component. Physical interaction may be brief or persistent.
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Changed: An exploited vulnerability can affect resources beyond the security scope managed by the security authority of the vulnerable component. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are different and managed by different security authorities.
Confidentiality: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Jun 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 2026-10-26.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
Flock Safety License Plate Reader	Affected =0	Fixed in–

AI-suggested

Given the absence of an official patch, European organizations should implement compensating controls to mitigate this vulnerability. First, restrict physical access to the LPR devices by deploying them in secured enclosures or monitored locations to prevent unauthorized personnel from connecting to or tampering with the devices. Second, network segmentation should be enforced to isolate the LPR devices from critical internal networks, limiting lateral movement if the device is compromised. Third, monitor network traffic to and from these devices for unusual activity that could indicate unauthorized access attempts. Fourth, consider disabling or restricting remote management interfaces if not required, or enforce strong authentication mechanisms at the network perimeter. Finally, engage with the vendor (Flock Safety) to obtain firmware updates or patches as soon as they become available and plan for timely deployment. Organizations should also review and update their privacy impact assessments and data protection measures to ensure compliance with GDPR in light of this vulnerability.

Description

Flock Safety LPR (License Plate Reader) devices with firmware through 2.2 have a hardcoded password for a system.

Impact

For European organizations, particularly those using Flock Safety LPR devices for security, traffic monitoring, or law enforcement purposes, this vulnerability could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive data collected by the devices, such as license plate information and timestamps. Although the impact on integrity and availability is negligible, unauthorized disclosure of vehicle tracking data could violate privacy regulations like the GDPR, leading to legal and reputational consequences. The requirement for physical proximity and high attack complexity reduces the likelihood of remote exploitation, but insider threats or attackers with physical access could leverage this vulnerability. This is especially relevant for organizations deploying these devices in public or semi-public areas where physical security controls may be limited. The low CVSS score suggests limited direct operational impact, but the potential privacy implications and regulatory risks are significant considerations for European entities.

CWE-259Use of Hard-coded Password (opens in a new tab)
Variant weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighOWASP Top 10 A07:2025: Authentication Failures (opens in a new tab)
The product contains a hard-coded password, which it uses for its own inbound authentication or for outbound communication to external components.
Architecture and Design
For outbound authentication: store passwords outside of the code in a strongly-protected, encrypted configuration file or database that is protected from access by all outsiders, including other local users on the same system. Properly protect the key (CWE-320).
Architecture and Design
For inbound authentication: Rather than hard-code a default username and password for first time logins, utilize a "first login" mode that requires the user to enter a unique strong password.
Architecture and Design
Perform access control checks and limit which entities can access the feature that requires the hard-coded password. For example, a feature might only be enabled through the system console instead of through a network connection.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
OWASP Authentication (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V2.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
V2.6.2 (opens in a new tab)
V2.8.5 (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Sep 2025, 00:39 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-259

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats